Hodges v. Holland - Bankruptcy Appeal Affirmed, Appellant Warned on Sanctions

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Michelle Hodges v. Gretchen D. Holland

District Court, D. South Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 6:25-cv-12590

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities

• Cited By

• Summaries

• Similar Cases

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Michelle Hodges, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-12590-JDA
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) OPINION AND ORDER
)
Gretchen D. Holland, )
)
Appellee. )

This matter is before the Court on Appellant’s appeal of an order issued by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina (the “Bankruptcy Court”)
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 1; 26.] In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial
proceedings.
On March 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
Bankruptcy Court order be affirmed and that this appeal be dismissed. [Doc. 26.] The
Magistrate further recommended that because “this is [Appellant’s] second meritless
appeal of matters in one bankruptcy petition,” Appellant should “be warned regarding the
entry of sanctions if she continues to file baseless bankruptcy appeals in this court.” [Id.
at 5–6.] The Magistrate Judge also advised Appellant of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed
to do so. [Id. at 7.] Appellant has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the
Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate

Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s order is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Appellant is further warned that, because this is her second meritless appeal of matters
in a single bankruptcy petition, she may be subject to sanctions if she continues to file
baseless bankruptcy appeals in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge
April 10, 2026
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.